‘Last week, The Mirror reported that John Leslie was being questioned by police in connection with an alleged sexual assault. The report contained photographs of the police with evidence bags outside Leslie’s house. The Mirror reminded its readers of allegations made against the former TV presenter in 2002 and 2008. This the most recent example of media reports concerning allegations of sexual offences involving public figures.’

‘On 23 November 2015 Sir Michael Tugendhat set aside an order for service out of the jurisdiction of proceedings for the misuse of private information and libel which had been made by Master Roberts on 31 March 2015 in respect of an article in Politika, a Serbian language newspaper circulating in Serbia and neighbouring countries in hard copy and available in this country only on the internet. Sir Michael held that the Claimant was in breach of his duty of full and frank disclosure and the case is a significant reminder of the duty of candour that rests upon a claimant when seeking permission to serve outside the jurisdiction under CPR 6.36 and of the perils of over-enthusiastic attempts to squeeze foreign claims into this jurisdiction. The case is also important on the question of how section 9(2) Defamation Act 2013 requiring evidence that England and Wales is “clearly the most appropriate place in which to bring an action in respect of the statement” is to be interpreted and the burden it places on a Claimant which the judge decided had not been discharged in this case.’

‘As if tenancy deposits weren’t complicated enough, now we can add libel claims to the consequences of a heated deposit dispute. It turns out that sending potentially libellous accusations to the deposit scheme adjudication service is possibly covered by qualified privilege.’

‘An action in defamation and under the right to privacy against Facebook has been dismissed in the High Court. The Facebook entity named as defendant did not “control” the publication so as to allow liability; and even if it did, no claim under the Human Rights Act could lie against FB as it could not be described as any sort of a public authority for the purposes of Section 6 of the Act.’

‘The University of Sussex has apologised to a former student, admitting there was “no truth” in its claim that he’d led an unlawful occupation of the university and carried out acts of criminal behaviour.’

‘Journalists seeking to rely on the new ‘public interest’ defence to a claim of defamation will still have to be able to prove that they have taken steps to verify the accuracy of what they have published, an expert has said.’

‘Brett Wilson LLP v Person(s) Unknown, Responsible for the Operation of the Website solicitorsfromhell.co.uk, 7 September (Warby J) [2015] EWHC 2628 (QB). This was a claim in libel by a firm of solicitors who acted for another firm which also claimed against the operators of SFHUK, causing the original site to be shut down (Law Society v Rick Kordowski [2011]). In this case the words complained of appeared on a new site, but despite efforts by the present claimants, it was not possible to find out who was operating it. The site alleged various aspects of mismanagement, including incompetence and fraud. It also quoted a client of the claimant firm who alleged overcharging and who refused to pay their fees. (It is worth noting that the site appears to have been taken down since default judgement was given in this case).’

‘A High Court judge has ordered the take-down of pages of an anti-solicitor website that contain defamatory statements about a law firm, after a litigation opponent alleged their publication was “evidence that the firm was disreputable”.’

‘The veteran Soviet dissident Vladimir Bukovsky is suing the Crown Prosecution Service for libel over a statement it issued in April announcing that he was being charged with child pornography offences.’

‘Businesses and people that bring libel actions should not succeed with those claims unless there is proof that the published comments made about them damage, or are likely to damage, their reputation, the High Court in London has ruled.’

‘The effect of section 1(1) of the Defamation Act 2013 was that a statement was not defamatory of a person unless it had caused or would probably cause serious harm to that person’s reputation, those being matters to be proved by the claimant on the balance of probabilities.’

‘The actor Sir Roger Moore has accepted undisclosed libel damages over claims that he groped a woman while shooting James Bond film For Your Eyes Only. The 87-year-old also received an apology and his legal costs over a story that appeared in the Daily Mail and on Mail Online in October 2014.’

‘Plans to broadcast HBO’s Church of Scientology exposé, Going Clear, have been shelved by Sky Atlantic in a virtual repeat of events two years ago, when UK publishers abandoned publication of the book on which the hard-hitting new TV documentary is based.’